Category Archives: Biblical Theology

12/04/2019

On the First Sunday of Advent

By Phillip Powers

Adventskranz 1. Advent

As previously noted, this last Sunday, December 1, 2019, marked the beginning of the Christian season of Advent, and this first Sunday of the Advent season emphasizes hope, namely our expectation that Jesus the Christ will one day return to this earth in glory and power to establish His kingdom forever. Understandably, the corresponding lectionary readings (taken from the Revised Common Lectionary) help us to envision and to prepare ourselves for that day, and they reinforce our hope in the midst of the pain and difficulties that are so common in our world today.

Old Testament: Isaiah 2.1-5
In the Old Testament reading, we are confronted with “The vision that Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem” (verse 1), and in this vision, the prophet looks forward to the last days to see the house of the Lord established and all the nations streaming to it. In verse 3, they say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us about his ways so that we may walk in his paths.”  This reminds us that God’s plan was never solely for the people of Israel; rather, His plan was for the salvation of the nations, that all peoples might come to know Him and to enjoy His benevolence. Because on that day, “instruction will go out of Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” 

And on that day, He will establish peace, as Isaiah describes in verse 4, “They will beat their swords into plows and their spears into pruning knives.” He goes on, “Nation will not take up the sword against nation, and they will never again train for war.” What a glorious hope that we have, that our Lord Jesus will come back to establish peace on earth once and for all. Oh, how we desperately long for that peace, and so, Isaiah encourages us, “House of Jacob, come and let us walk in the Lord’s light.” In other words, we are called to people of peace because of our hope. We know that one day our Lord Jesus will return.  This is our blessed hope, and so we must walk in the His light.

Psalm: Psalm 122
The Psalm reading follows up on Isaiah’s vision, then, with a prayer for the well being of Jerusalem. It is one of the “Songs of Ascent” which would be sang by Jewish pilgrims as they made their way up to the holy city to worship at the temple. As it says, “I rejoiced with those who said to me, ‘Let us go to the house of the Lord.'” (verse 1) And David tells us why we should rejoice in verse 3-4, where he writes, “Jerusalem, built as a city should be, solidly united, where the tribes, the Lord’s tribes, go up to give thanks to the name of the Lord.” Of course David was thinking of that earthly city, that temple which was made by hands, but we know, in light of our Lord’s first coming, that we are waiting for that heavenly Jerusalem, the city of God, where we will live in the presence of God for eternity. This is our hope.

Gospel: Matthew 24.36-44
The Gospel reading for this first Sunday of Advent, as it does every year, comes from the Olivet Discourse, in this case Matthew’s version. And this is a profound reminder that the season of Advent is radically eschatological in its scope. Yes, it prepares us to celebrate the birth of the Christ-child at Christmas, but it also reminds that our hope is yet future. And as Jesus says, “Now concerning that day and hour no one knows – neither the angels of heaven nor the Son – except the Father alone” (verse 36). And He concludes, “This is why you are also to be ready, because the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect” (verse 44). The point here is clear, that we must be ready, that we must prepare ourselves for His arrival, and in the context of the Olivet Discourse, this means that we must be faithful to the responsibilities that He has left us. As it says in verse 46, “Blessed is that servant who the master finds doing his job when he comes.”

New Testament: Romans 13.11-14
And finally, the New Testament reading gives us a glimpse of what this readied faithfulness looks like. It is sufficient here, I believe, to simply quote the passage at length: “Besides this, since you know the time, it is already the hour for you to wake up from sleep, because now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. The night is nearly over, and the day is near; so let us discard the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us walk with decency, as in the daytime: not in carousing and drunkenness; not in sexual impurity and promiscuity; not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and don’t make plans to gratify the desires of the flesh.” That last line says it all, that we should put on Christ-likeness, because we know that our hope is certain and that our faithfulness will be rewarded on that day when Jesus comes again.

And so, let us renew our hope this Advent season. We live in a world that is completely inundated with conflict, confusion, and chaos; we are constantly bombarded with painful and tearful reminders that this world is not completely as it should be. But one day, it will all be put to rights, and until that time, we are called to endure in hope and to persevere in faithfulness, no matter how grim the outlook may be.

For further study:
On the Use and Benefit of the Lectionary
On the Season of Advent

3 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Bible Exposition, Biblical Theology, Gospels Studies, Spiritual Formation, Worship & Liturgy

10/21/2019

On Psalm 119.1-8 (Aleph)

By Phillip Powers

Aleph
1 How happy are those whose way is blameless,
who walk according to the Lord’s instruction!
2 Happy are those who keep his decrees
and seek him with all their heart.
3 They do nothing wrong;
they walk in his ways.
4 You have commanded that your precepts
be diligently kept.
5 If only my ways were committed
to keeping your statutes!
6 Then I would not be ashamed
when I think about all your commands.
7 I will praise you with an upright heart
when I learn your righteous judgments.
8 I will keep your statutes;
never abandon me. (CSB)

ℵ (aleph) is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and therefore, it is the first stanza of Psalm 119. And when we read the first two verses, we are immediately confronted by the simple truth that obedience to the Word of God is the only way to experience God’s blessing. The CSB (see above) renders the verb as “happy”, whereas the majority of modern translations (NET, ESV, NASB, NIV) render it as “blessed”. Interestingly, the NLT renders this word as “joyful”, and this perhaps most accurately reflects the psalmists intent. “Joyful are people of integrity, who follow the instructions of the Lord. Joyful are those who obey his laws and search for him with all their hearts.” Nevertheless, no matter which English rendering we prefer, it is clear that something more than pleasing circumstances is being described here.

In the Bible, blessing or joy is something that is experienced more deeply in the human soul than mere surface level happiness. It is that inner sense of complete satisfaction and total contentment, of unwavering peace and ultimate fulfillment. It is nothing less then the ultimate thriving of the human soul as God intended it. And lets be clear, the source of this blessed joy is completely divine. It is not something that we can manufacture or achieve on our own. Our psalmist is clear that the only way into this experience of divine blessing is by obedience to the Word of God. In fact, he goes on to say in these verses that obedience is the only way that we can be set free from the bondage of guilt and shame and bring praise into his abiding presence.

Sadly, obedience is under emphasized in most Protestant versions of spirituality. Because of our Reformation heritage, we are quick to react against anything that smacks of works based salvation. We champion the cause of sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus, that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. As Paul said in Ephesians, chapter 2, verse 9, “not from works, so that no one can boast.” However, in our haste to affirm the unconditional nature of grace, we have neglected and omitted the role that obedience plays in the Christian life. As Paul went on to say in that very next verse, “ For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time for us to do.” (Eph. 2.10) The simple truth that the psalmist is affirming in this first stanza of Psalm 119 is that obedience to God’s Word is the only available way into the fullness of divine blessing.

Of course, the reality is that none of us are able to perfectly keep the commands of God. As the Apostle James reminds us in chapter 2, verse 10 of his letter, “For whoever keeps the entire law, and yet stumbles at one point, is guilty of breaking it all.” The Gospel teaches us that we are all sinners, that we are all utterly incapable of obeying God’s Word. And left to ourselves, we can never experience the fullness of God’s blessing. This is why our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ became incarnate. He lived a life of perfect obedience to God’s Word in every way. And because we are united to Him by faith, His perfect obedience has become our obedience, His righteousness has become our righteousness. This is why Paul writes in Ephesians, chapter 1, verse 3, “Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavens in Christ.”

And it is precisely because His perfect obedience has been graciously reckoned unto us as righteousness that we should value and cultivate the habits of obedience to God’s Word. We should love obedience the way that the psalmist does here, because when we walk in His ways, then we are able to experience the fullness of blessings that are already ours in Christ by the Spirit.

For further study:
Introduction/Overview

10 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , | posted in Bible Exposition, Biblical Theology, Psalm 119, Spiritual Formation

10/13/2019

On Psalm 119: An Introduction and Overview

By Phillip Powers

megillat-esther-persia-long-view

The Psalms are perhaps the best kept secret of the Old Testament; they are a deep well of food for the weary Christian soul. They are a rich resource for our spirituality, but sadly, more often than not, we neglect this spring of spiritual life in favor of the well worn tracts of the New Testament. However, this is merely a symptom of the larger problem, that being our fundamental neglect of the Old Testament in general, but more on that another time. For the purpose of this post, it is enough to say that most Christians are suffering from a feeble weakened spiritual life due to a basic disregard for the Book of Psalms.

Of course, there isn’t enough time or space here to completely explore the spiritual richness of each and every chapter in this central Old Testament Book, but there is one chapter in particular that demands our attention – Psalm 119. This chapter is a vast ocean of refreshing spiritual water for the dry and weary soul, and yet, so often, we fearfully ignore it simply due to its size. And at first glance it can be overwhelming; there are 176 total verses in this single chapter. However, in spite of its imposing length, there is an artistry about this chapter that is beautiful and majestic. It lifts us out of the despair of our circumstances into the glory and hope that is the Word of God.

From a composition perspective, this chapter is an absolute masterpiece of literary artistry. It is structured in a Hebrew acrostic pattern, which means that each successive stanza begins with the next letter of the Hebrew alphabet. There are twenty-two stanzas, one each for every letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and each stanza contains eight lines, each beginning with the designated Hebrew letter for that stanza. (22 x 8 = 176) However, what is truly masterful is that almost every line contains some synonym for the Word of God. Law, testimonies, ways, precepts, statutes, commandments, judgments/ordinances, Word, promises, etc. The psalmist enumerates the perfections of God’s Word in every line literally from A to Z.

And this is perhaps the most important aspect of this glorious chapter, namely that it is written as poetry, and as such, it is intended not only to speak to our intellect but to stir our affections, to lift our souls, to restore our hope and joy. It is impossible to read this psalm and not be completely awestruck by the authors absolute joy in God’s Word. In other words, for the psalmist, the Word of God is more than a mere resource for right thinking and right doing. No, it is so much more than that. It is the foundation upon which he stands; it is the source of all his hope and joy and comfort and assurance. It is the sustenance and provision for all of his being, all of his spirituality and devotion. The Word of the one true and living God is all that he needs.

However, in spite of all of this magnificent and majestic artistry, this Psalm is still largely neglected and/or completely ignored in the devotions of most Christians and their churches. Whether it is because we find it imposing and off putting due to its length, or simply because we believe it to be redundant and repetitive, we refuse to refresh our souls at this inexhaustible spring of spiritual life. And this is absolutely to our spiritual detriment. We severely need the testimony of this Psalm in both our personal and corporate devotions, especially at a time when the sufficiency of God’s Word is being questioned more and more. Let us turn back once again to the well worn paths of biblical spirituality, and linger long over Psalm 119.

For further study:
Spurgeon, Charles H. The Golden Alphabet: An Exposition of Psalm 119. Revised and Updated. Abbotsford, WI: Aneko Press, 2018.

11 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , | posted in Bible Exposition, Biblical Theology, Psalm 119, Spiritual Formation

04/24/2018

On the Interpretation of the Prophetic Genre

By Phillip Powers

solar-eclipse-apocalypse-853728

There is an inherent fascination in the human psyche with knowing the future. We all would like to have the ability to know and/or predict the future, because, let’s be honest, the unknown can be downright frightening. In the Christian context, this fascination works itself out in an obsession with the prophetic portions of Holy Scripture. Passages like Daniel’s 70 weeks, Jesus’ Olivet Discourse, or John’s Revelation along with numerous others become the seed bed for a diversity of end-times scenarios and perspectives. Modern day geo-political entities and events are identified with biblical images to suggest that we are living in the end times, or even to predict specific dates for the end of the world and Jesus’ second coming. So-called prophecy teachers write books espousing their views on end-times events, and they host prophecy conferences to advance their particular eschatological agendas.

The problem with all of this is that it is based on a fundamental hermeneutical error as it relates to the interpretation of the prophetic genres of Holy Scripture, namely that these prophecies speak with specificity to the events and political personalities of our own day. Certainly, the teaching of Holy Scripture, especially its prophetic portions, applies to the day in which we live, but these passages do not identify the specific movements of geo-political entities or personalities as we know them. The actions of nations like Russia, Iran, Syria, or Israel in our world have no relationship whatsoever to the prophecies of Holy Scripture. So, instead of trying to use current newspaper headlines like a cipher to “decode” the prophecies of the Bible, we should attempt to understand these texts within the boundaries of a reasonable and sound hermeneutical method. In the space that remains, I will attempt to lay out some of interpretive principles that may guide us in our understanding of the prophetic genres of Holy Scripture.

First, we must give interpretive priority to the original author’s intended message for his specific audience. In other words, a text cannot mean something today that it did not mean when it was originally written/spoken. But, someone might say, “well, isn’t the Holy Spirit the original author of all of scripture,” and then, they might go on to argue for a sensus plenior, a fuller sense than the human author was able to realize.  However, we must affirm that in inspiration God did not violate or override the identity of the human authors. Rather, in His graceful condescension, he used the personality and circumstances of the human authors to convey timeless truths, even while speaking to a specific people at a specific time in a specific way. So, any “fuller sense” we may supposedly identify must be consistent with the human author’s intended message, and if an interpretation or any applications we come up with would not make sense to the original audience, then we have violated this fundamental principle.

Second, and somewhat related to the first, we must give interpretive respect to the original context in which a particular a text occurs. In other words, a text without a context is a pretext for a proof text. The original authors of Holy Scripture were writing to specific people living at a particular time in a particular place, so, in order to understand their intended message, we must give consideration to the particulars of their historical and literary contexts. This is especially true when it comes to texts like the prophets, because, more often than not, they are using evocative cultural imagery, symbolism, and metaphors that would resonate with their intended audience. So, any supposed correspondence or identification of their imagery with persons, places, or things our modern context must be considered suspect if it could not have made sense in the original context within which it was spoken/written.

Third, we must reconsider our understanding of the prophetic task. The prophets of the Old Testament, and those prophetic texts in the New Testament, are not interested in laying out a step by step playbook for the events culminating in the end of the world. That kind question is more a reflection of our own interests than it is of theirs. The prophets were more interested in forth-telling God’s truth for their audiences than they were in foretelling future events, and all of their foretelling serves their overall purpose of forth-telling. Their primary interests and motives were moral, to bring about change in behavior and conduct; they were not interested in prediction simply for the sake of prediction. In other words, the prophets purpose is to indict Israel for her failure to keep God’s covenant and call her to repentance, to warn of impending judgment and punishment for disobedience, and to instill a hope for the future restoration in spite of that punishment.  We must remember that almost all of their predictions find their fulfillment in Israel’s immediate future, and the ones that do refer beyond that immediate time frame find their fulfillment in the eschaton at Jesus’ coming. So, any supposed fulfillment in our own day should be rejected outright as outside the boundaries of the prophetic task.

Finally, we must not let our theological/eschatological presuppositions (read hobby horses) control our understanding of Holy Scripture. Rather, Holy Scripture should govern our theological/eschatological conclusions.  Most of the obsession with the prophetic scriptures presupposes the framework of classic dispensational premillenialism; however, this kind of presupposition puts the proverbial cart before the horse. Now, I am not interested here in evaluating the particular tenets of that eschatological perspective, but it is important that we do not impose our preferred theological or eschatological viewpoint on the text. We certainly can and should draw theological conclusions from Holy Scripture as a part of the interpretive process, but we must remember that those theological conclusions should be held in submission to not in presumption of the teaching of Holy Scripture.

Ultimately, we must remember that the purpose of eschatology in the Bible is always sanctification. In nearly every instance, the foretelling of future events is meant to elicit life changing transformation. So, when we teach or preach from the prophetic portions of Holy Scripture, we would do well to follow their lead and invite our audiences to respond likewise. Even when our world seems dark and dim, our eschatological hope in Jesus’ second coming should lead to renewed and strengthened faith for living. If our interpretation of the prophets does not accomplish this task in us and in our hearers, then we have completely misunderstood the prophetic genres of the Bible.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , | posted in Biblical Theology, Christian Education, Hermeneutics, Ministry

04/09/2018

On Penal Substitution Theory in the Early Church

By Phillip Powers

church fathers

Recently, I have been reflecting on the penal substitution theory of the atonement as it relates to the significance of Jesus death, both in the thinking of Jesus himself and in the understanding of his first followers. And the conclusion that I came to in both of those posts is that a penal substitution understanding is essential and necessary for a proper understanding of the atonement. The witness of Holy Scripture requires us to conclude that Jesus died for our sin. He took the place we deserved when he was nailed to the cross, and, in his death, he satisfied the just and due penalty for our sin required by a Holy and Righteous God.

This my seem like an injustice to us, that the innocent Son of God was unjustly punished by His Father for the sins of human beings, but simply because our modern sensibilities may view this as distasteful and hard to swallow, we cannot simply dismiss this understanding of the cross as so-called “cosmic child abuse”. Any attempt to bypass the offense of the cross to make it more palatable must ultimately be rejected. It is the very injustice of the cross that makes the Gospel beautiful and powerful, because that injustice was suffered by God himself that we might be reconciled to Him. He himself paid the penalty that He himself required so that we might be saved.

However, if we truly believe that this understanding of the cross is true and necessary, then it would make sense that we would see it throughout the history of the church. In their attempts to disprove this view, some critics of penal substitution suggest that the theory did not exist in the early church. They argue that it first appeared in the late eleventh century in the writings of Anselm of Canterbury, specifically in his work Cur Deus Homo. It was then further developed in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas in his work Summa Theologiae, and then crystalized into the doctrine we know today in the 16th century by John Calvin in The Institutes of Christian Religion.

While the contributions of these works to our understanding of the atonement certainly hold great value, these critics question that if a penal substitution theory of the atonement is so central and essential, then why is not represented in the theological tradition before the 11th century. It is further argued that the early church fathers unanimously held to a Christus Victor or ransom theory of the atonement, and that if that’s how the earliest theologians viewed the atonement, then so should we. The problem with this argument, though, is that this it is often more assumed than it is demonstrated.

So, in what follows, rather then examining the views of any specific church father, I would simply like to list some resources that challenge this prevailing understanding of the development of the theology of the atonement.

Books
Jeffery, Steve, et al. Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007.
McDonald, H.D. The Atonement of the Death of Christ: In Faith, Revelation, and History. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1985.

Articles
Chatfield, Graeme. “Penal Substitutionary Atonement in the Early Church Fathers, the Creeds, and Trinitarian Theology.” The Pacific Journal of Baptist Research 10/1 (May 2015). 3-10.
Vlach, Michael J. “Penal Substitution in Church History.” The Masters Seminary Journal 20/2 (Fall 2009). 199-214.
Williams, Garry J. ” Penal Substitutionary Atonement in the Church Fathers.” Evangelical Quarterly 83/3 (Fall 2011). 195-216.

Weblinks
“Historical Reflections on Substitutionary Atonement” posted at FullerStudio.Fuller.edu
“Penal Substitution a Sixteenth-Century Innovation?” posted at ReformationTheology.com, 05.11.12
“No Christus Victor Here – Atonement According to the Apostolic Fathers” posted at HolySpiritActivism.com, 04.07.14
“A Common (But Bad) Reason for Rejecting Penal Substitution” posted at Christianity.com, 07.15.14
“Did Early Christians Believe in Substitutionary Atonement?” posted at TheGospelCoalition.org, 04.03.15
“Penal Substitution as a Theory of Atonement in the Early Church Fathers” posted at OrthodoxChristianTheology.com, 06.03.15
“Penal Substitution in the Church Fathers: Part II” posted at OrthodoxChristianTheology.com, 11.26.15
“10 Things You should Know about Penal Substitution” posted at SamStorms.com, 05.02.16
“Penal Substitution In The Writings Of The Church Fathers” posted at PirateChristian.com,  05.04.16

Now, we certainly do not want read later theological concepts back in to the early church fathers anachronistically, but we may conclude that “an author can be held to teach the penal doctrine if he plainly states that the punishment deserved by sin from God was borne and dealt with by Jesus Christ in his death on the cross.” This means that the early church fathers can be shown to affirm the essential features of a penal substitution view, even if their understanding of that essential truth was not as developed as it would be by later authors. The church fathers were not univocal or unanimous in their support of the Christus Victor view as critics of the penal substitution view claim. They seemingly held a multifaceted understanding of the atonement with no one view overshadowing any others.

And this final observation is quite instructive for Christians today. No one view, no matter how essential, central, and necessary it is, can exhaust the mystery of Jesus’ death on the cross. So, even while affirming the centrality of the penal substitution view, we must not overlook or ignore other possible significances. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is to the Christian faith like a beautiful diamond whose many facets all shine forth the glory of God in our salvation.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , | posted in Biblical Theology, Church History, Systematic Theology

03/28/2018

On Jesus’ Understanding of His Death

By Phillip Powers

JesusFinalHours-56a149da5f9b58b7d0bdda13

In a previous post, I began considering how we should understand the death of Jesus, and I argued that the overwhelming testimony of both the Old and New Testament point to a penal substitution view as essential for understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Specifically, I gave a handful of quotations from the various New Testament authors that show that the very first followers of Jesus understood His death in this way. Now, it is only reasonable to suppose that they must have received this understanding from somewhere; they didn’t just come up with it on their own. And it is my thesis that they received this understanding of Jesus’ atonement from Jesus himself.

However, this proposition is not without its critics. One such voice is that which belongs to Brian Zahnd, founder and lead pastor of Word of Life Church in St. Joseph, Missouri and author of a book entitled, Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God: The Scandalous Truth of the Very Good News, where he argues:

“Among the many problems with [a penal substitution] theory of the cross is that it turns God into a petty tyrant and a moral monster. Punishing the innocent in order to forgive the guilty is monstrous logic, atrocious theology, and a gross distortion of the idea of justice. … A theory of the cross that says it was God who desired the torture and murder of Jesus on Good Friday turns the Father of Jesus into a cruel and sadistic monster. It’s salvation by divine sadism.” (101-102)

He has also stated that

“Even if penal substitutionary atonement theory is one of the correct models for interpreting the cross (personally I’m convinced its a pagan idea and an outrageous libel against God) its still not the gospel. The gospel is the story of Jesus – not abstract atonement theories.” (via @BrianZahnd, tweeted 3.20.18, 7:27PM)

And in his blog “How Did Jesus Understand His Death?”, he argues that Jesus understood his death in the vein of the Christus Victor theory of the atonement on the basis of John 12:31-32.

So, in order to understand the meaning of Jesus’ death, we must consider carefully how Jesus understood it and conveyed its significance to His first disciples. It is relatively obvious that Jesus anticipated his death by crucifixion at the hands of the Jewish and Roman authorities. In the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), He predicts his death at least three specific occasions. Those predictions, along with many other allusions, coupled with the obvious animosity between the Jewish religious establishment and Jesus clearly indicate that Jesus was well aware of the fate that awaited Him on that third and final trip to Jerusalem. However, not only did he expect his upcoming execution, he also very clearly saw it as the necessary culmination of His ministry and mission.

In this light then, it is reasonable to expect that He must have reflected on the meaning of His death. And there are three sayings of Jesus that give us some insight into how he understood that meaning. The first saying of Jesus that gives us some insight into how he understood His death is found in Mark 10:45 (also Matthew 20.28), which is known as the ransom saying, because Jesus says, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The second saying of Jesus that shows how he understood his death is found in the words of institution at the Last Supper (Mark 14:22-25, Matt. 26:26-29, Luke 22:14-20). There Jesus reinterprets the elements of the Passover meal in the light of His upcoming death. And the third saying that is also somewhat conceptually related is found in the prayer of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, when he prayed “Take this cup away from me.” (Mark 14:36. Matt. 26:39,42, Luke 22:42)

These statements indicate that Jesus understood his death as a vicarious substitution for many, and it seems reasonably clear that the theological background of these sayings is to be found in that paradigmatic passage from the Old Testament which describes the vicarious substitution of the “suffering servant”. In Isaiah 52:13-53:12, the prophet vividly predicts the vicarious and expiatory suffering of the servant of the Lord for the many. The linguistic and conceptual parallels between the suffering servant song and these sayings of Jesus are quite telling. For example, the idea of a ransom in Mark 10:45, used as a metaphor, parallels the idea of a guilt offering in Isaiah 53:10, and the idea for many echoes the repetitive many in Isaiah 53:11-12. This indicates that Jesus clearly understood himself to be fulfilling the role of the suffering servant in His death on the cross.

Further, in the garden, when Jesus asks His Father to remove “the cup”, He is likely referring to “the cup of God’s wrath” or “judgment” so often described in the Old Testament prophets. And that is why He is able to say in John 12:31, “Now is the judgment of this world.” So, here again it seems fairly evident that Jesus understood His death as the satisfaction of God’s judgment on sin. In light of all this, it is safe to conclude that Jesus viewed His death as a substitutionary and expiatory act that satisfies the just judgment and due penalty for sin before a Holy God. It would seem, then, that the first followers of Jesus drew their penal substitution view of the atonement directly from the words of Jesus himself.

2 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Biblical Theology, Gospels Studies, Historical Jesus, Systematic Theology

03/15/2018

On so called ‘Cosmic Child Abuse’ and the Atonement

By Phillip Powers

o-CRUCIFIXION-facebook

In recent years, it has become rather faddish for critics of traditional atonement theory to dismiss the idea of penal substitution as a form of cosmic child abuse. In other words, these critics assert that it is a morally evil injustice for God to punish His innocent Son for the sins of all other human beings. They further assert that this kind of “redemptive violence” is simply incompatible with a God who is love. Stephen Chalk and Alan Mann, in their book The Lost Message of Jesus, state it this way:

The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse—a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement “God is love”. If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil.

Later, they give their understanding of the atonement when they state:

The truth is, the cross is a symbol of love. It is a demonstration of just how far God as Father and Jesus as his Son are prepared to go to prove that love. The cross is a vivid statement of the powerlessness of love.

This moral influence theory of the atonement is not new or original with Chalk and Mann. It was first advanced by a medieval scholastic theologian named Peter Abelard (1079-1142), who

“emphasized the primacy of God’s love and insisted that Christ did not make some sort of sacrificial payment to the Father to satisfy his offended dignity. Rather, Jesus demonstrated to humanity the full extent of God’s love for them” (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 803)

In other words, on the cross, God showed to what extent He was willing to go to demonstrate the depth of His love for humanity, and His great love so demonstrated should cause human beings to respond in love to God. Certainly, God is love (1 John 4:7-21) and the cross is a demonstration of God’s love (Romans 5:8), but the above definition simply does not go far enough to explain why the cross is effective as a means of salvation for human beings. In what follows, I will give some reasons why this critique, that penal substitutionary atonement is “cosmic child abuse”, is completely unfounded and why a penal substitution view of the atonement is essential to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

First, it goes against the overwhelming testimony of Holy Scripture. It is no overstatement to conclude that the nearly unanimous witness of the Biblical authors from beginning to end is that Christ died as a substitute for the sins of humanity. There is not enough space here to quote all the verses that would serve to prove this point, so a few will simply have to suffice. As it relates to the Old Testament, one could argue that the entire sacrificial system was pointing to the death of Jesus, because that system is based upon the foundational assumption that the death of animals can substitute and atone for the sins of human beings. But, the premier text on this topic is the “Suffering Servant Song” of Isaiah 53, which says in part:

But he was pierced because of our rebellion, crushed because of our iniquities; punishment for our peace was on him, and we are healed by his wounds. We all went astray like sheep; we all have turned to our own way; and the Lord has punished him for the iniquity of us all. (verses 5-6)

And, in the New Testament, there are numerous verses that could be quoted to show that the first followers of Jesus understood his death as a substitutionary atonement for sin. Due to space limitations, a few will have to suffice. In 1 Corinthians 15:3, Paul says, “For I passed on to you as most important what I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” Also, in 2 Corinthians 5:21, “He made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” In Romans 4:25, he says “He was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” And not only Paul, but we see that the other writers of the New Testament understood the atonement in this way as well. In 1 Peter 2:24, Peter wrote, “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree; so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness.” And in 1 Peter 3:18, he wrote, “For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring you to God.” In 1 John 4:10, John writes, “Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice (propitiation) for our sins.” And the author of Hebrews, says in Hebrews 2:9, “But we do see Jesus—made lower than the angels for a short time so that by God’s grace he might taste death for everyone.”

In light of all this, we are safe to conclude that the Old and New Testament authors unanimously understand the death of Jesus as a substitute making atonement to God for the sins of humanity.

Second, this view also misunderstands the essential character and nature of God in two ways. First, as it relates to His character, proponents of this kind of moral influence theory exalt God’s love over and against His other attributes, namely His holiness and justice. God’s character attributes cannot be so divided as to pit them against one another. He is a God of love, but he is also and equally a God of holiness and justice. Moreover, His attributes are interrelated, such that his love is just and holy, and his holiness and justice are loving. To pit God’s justice against His love is to recapitulate that ancient heresy attributed to Marcion of Sinope (c. 85-c. 160), who believed the wrathful Hebrew God of the Old Testament was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament. That heresy was rightly condemned by the fathers of early church.

Also, as it relates to the nature of God, this view fundamentally misunderstands the doctrine of the trinity. These critics of the traditional penal substitutionary view seem to assume that the Son was an innocent third party separate and distinct from God the Father. Therefore, they argue that it is unjust for God to punish the Son for the sins of all humanity. However, the Son is not some innocent disconnected third party in this discussion; no, the Son is God himself. The second person of the trinity was incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth, so it was the second person of the Trinity that died on the cross. We must not disconnect God’s threeness (in persons) from his oneness (in essence). After all, Christians are fundamentally monotheists; Holy Scripture clearly teaches that there is one God. So, we must conclude that all three Persons are the same God. In other words, there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons. So, if the second person of the trinity died on the cross for the sins of humanity, then we must say that God himself died on the cross for the sins of humanity. Thus, the Son was a willing participant in the crucifixion, as God took the sins of humanity onto himself.

The atonement, a penal substitutionary atonement, is at the very center of the Christian Gospel, that Jesus Christ bore the sins of humanity on the cross and died in their place to satisfy their deserved punishment before a just and holy God. Let us not shrink from this fact in fear or shame, but embrace it as the glorious demonstration of God’s love that it is.

2 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , | posted in Biblical Theology, Church History, Gospels Studies, Historical Jesus, Systematic Theology, Worship & Liturgy

03/06/2018

On Partaking of the Lord’s Supper

By Phillip Powers

UnworthyCommunion.jpg

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sin against the body and blood of the Lord.  Let a person examine himself; in this way let him eat the bread and drink from the cup.  For whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.  This is why many are sick and ill among you, and many have fallen asleep. (1 Corinthians 11:27-30, CSB)

Certainly, no one wants to partake of the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy way, especially if the consequences are sickness and/or death! But because of our western cultural predispositions, especially toward individualism and toward feelings of guilt rather than shame, we usually read Paul’s warnings here as if they concern our individual relationship with God. In other words, when Paul speaks of partaking of the elements in an “unworthy way,” we typically think of that which makes us feel unworthy before God, namely unconfessed sins. Moreover, when we read that “a man should examine himself”, we primarily think of some kind of moralistic introspection. Practically speaking, this usually entails a time of “prayerful self-examination and confession” prior to the distribution of the elements.

The problem with this is that rather than drawing the believer to celebrate anew the glory of God’s forgiveness in the Gospel through the observance of the Lord’s Supper, we end up heaping more feelings of guilt on the believer who truly desires to confess ALL their sins before partaking of the elements. Besides, who could ever be certain that they had confessed 100% of their sins, and thus could partake “worthily”? And what about the forgiveness that we have already received when we placed our faith in the Gospel at conversion; was it not once-for-all? So, in order to understand Paul’s warning here, I think we must reevaluate Paul’s instructions light of the social issues which they were meant to address.

The text of 1 Corinthians chapter 11 is relatively clear; obviously, there were some problems in how the Corinthians were practicing the Lord’s Supper, so much so that Paul’s comments on this issue are very sharp. He minces no words so to speak, and the reason for Paul’s outrage is simply this: The behavior of the Corinthian Christians at the Lord’s Table denies all that the Gospel stands for. In verse 20, Paul says that when they come together, they aren’t eating the Lord’s Supper. They may be sharing a meal together, but it looks nothing like the Lord’s meal. In other words, their behavior at the Lord’s Table is based in the values of the surrounding culture and not in the values of the Gospel. But in order to understand how this is so, we must consider the significance of meals in Paul’s world.

For them, the purpose of meals was much broader than simply eating food and consuming the necessary nourishment for the day’s tasks. No, in the first century, sharing a meal with someone was the primary gesture of companionship and community. Table fellowship was the principal means for establishing, enriching, and reaffirming relational bonds between groups of people, whether those groups were familial, religious, or secular in nature. Sharing meals together was the primary means for developing relationships. On the other hand, though, the table could also be the place where divisions according to honor, status, and affluence were publicly displayed and reinforced. In other words, mealtimes in the first century reinforced social divisions between the social elites and the lower classes, between the wealthy and poor, between the “haves” and the “have-nots”.

It is this latter function of meals that explains the practice of the Corinthian Christians. They are eating in a way that reinforces and perpetuates the divisions that exist among them. In chapter 11, verses 18-19, Paul says, “For to begin with, I hear that when you come together as a church there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it. There must, indeed, be factions among you, so that those who are approved may be recognized among you.” And this is why their coming together is not for the better but for the worse. Apparently, the more well-to-do and affluent members of the congregation were arriving at the meeting early, gorging themselves on the best foods and the best wine, and they were getting downright drunk. Then, when the poorer day laborers arrived later in the evening, there was nothing left for them to eat, so they went hungry.

For Paul, this is an explicit denial of the unity that they should be sharing in Christ. Listen again to the words of Paul in chapter 11, verse 22, “Don’t you have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you look down on the church of God and embarrass those who have nothing? What should I say to you? Should I praise you? I do not praise you for this!” Obviously, Paul is outraged, and as a corrective, he reminds them of the Lord’s Supper tradition. In other words, he reminds them that in the Gospel, cultural values like honor, status, and wealth are no longer relevant. All people stand or fall on their response to the Gospel no matter who they are. And the gospel not only transforms our relationship with God; it also transforms our relationship with others. We no longer see people as the world sees them; instead, we see them as Christ sees them. We relate to people according to the values of the Gospel, because the ground is level at the foot of the cross. We all stand equally in need of Jesus.

So, in order to understand Paul’s warning in chapter 11, verses 27-30, we must remember that the central issue at stake for Paul is not moral or ethical; rather, it is primarily communal or social. The question is not about one’s individual worth before God. Rather, it is the quality of our relationships with each other. In other words, it is primarily social in nature. The self-examination that Paul envisions is an attempt to evaluate one’s attitudes toward others in the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, we might ask ourselves these questions:

Am I showing Christian love to the members of this community equally?
Am I reinforcing or breaking down worldly social distinctions by my actions?
Am I jockeying, competing, or striving for social advancement at the expense of others?Am I selflessly giving of myself, my time, my money in order to benefit others?
Am I evaluating people according the values of the culture or the values of the Gospel?Am I engendering unity or disunity within this community by my actions and behaviors?

If we will examine ourselves in this way, by honestly answering these questions, then we will be rightly discerning the body, and we will partake of the Lord’s Supper worthily. The Lord’s Table is where anyone who believes in Jesus Christ can come to receive the promise of pardon and forgiveness and bask in the grace and love of God the Father poured out through God the Son by the Holy Spirit. Let us celebrate this table together as one body of united believers in Jesus.

 

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , | posted in Biblical Theology, Ecclesiology, Ministry, Spiritual Formation, Worship & Liturgy

01/25/2018

On Persistence in Prayer – Part 3

By Phillip Powers

32948-kneeling-prayer-1200_1200w_tn.jpg

I have recently been considering Jesus’ teaching on the topic of prayer. In my last post in particular, I looked at Luke 11 and the parable of the friend at midnight, and I concluded that Jesus is calling us to a persistence in prayer that is general in scope, a persistence in the spiritual discipline of prayer, itself. Our Father is not the kind of God who needs to worn down, pestered, or annoyed into answering our prayers. He is an essentially good and trustworthy father who knows what His children need before we even ask him, and he delights in meeting the needs of his children.

Now, in chapter 18, just seven chapters later, Luke presents a parable that would seem to negate that very conclusion. In Luke 18:1, Luke states that “Now he told them a parable on the need for them to pray always and not give up,” and he goes on to relay the parable of the unjust judge in which a widow repeatedly goes before a local magistrate seeking justice against her “adversary.” Ultimately, the judge concludes that “because this widow keeps pestering me, I will give her justice, so that she doesn’t wear me out by her persistent coming.” (v5-6) If we assume that this parable relates to the practice of prayer in general, then we have no choice but to conclude that perhaps we need pester God into giving in to our requests.

This is exactly the assumption that we must reconsider in this passage: is Luke and, by way of implication, Jesus telling this parable to illustrate something about prayer in general? I think not.

Luke often arranges the teaching and parabolic material of Jesus topically, and he indicates the topic usually at the beginning of a new section. So, in Luke 17:20, Luke begins a new section about “when the kingdom of God would come,” and this section dealing with the coming of the kingdom begins in 17:20 and extends all the way until Luke 18:8. (Remember, Luke did not originally have chapter divisions). Then, in Luke 18:9, he begins a new section in which “He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and looked down on everyone else.” This informs us that Jesus is not addressing our practice of prayer in general, but he is addressing a very specific kind of prayer, i.e. the prayer for the coming of the kingdom.

Secondly, in order to understand the exact nature of the widow’s request, we have to see her in light of the first century world in which Jesus lived. In Jesus’ day, women were essentially powerless, and, if their husband died, then they were left without many options for survival. Most likely, this widow was not allowed to inherit her husband’s property. So, her only options were to remain with her husband’s family where she would probably be treated as a servant, or to return to her family and repay her dowry to her parents. If she could not do either of these, she would probably be sold as a slave for debt. She was faced with homelessness, poverty, and starvation. So, her request to the judge “give me justice against my adversary” is a once-in-a-lifetime request, it was unique to her situation, and it was not something she would repeat ever again. Her situation is desperate, and she is powerless to change it.

Lastly, just like in Luke 11, so here we must recognize that Jesus is using a rhetorical technique called “from the lesser to the greater”; he is making a “how much more” argument, and he is doing so by way of contrast and not comparison. It is patently obvious in this passage that we are not supposed to identify God with the unjust judge, since the passage tells us twice that he neither feared God nor respected men. The God of the Bible is fair, good, and just. He treats all people equally; He blesses those who call upon him in faith. No, God is not like the judge in this passage.

So, hear Jesus’ conclusion,

“Listen to what the unjust judge says. Will not God grant justice to his elect who cry out to him day and night? Will he delay in helping them? I tell you he will swiftly grant them justice.” (vv6-8)

In the final analysis, Jesus is teaching us to pray always as he taught us in The Lord’s Prayer, “May your kingdom come,” and not give up hope. He is coming soon. “Amen, come Lord Jesus!”

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Biblical Theology, Gospels Studies, Historical Jesus, Sermons, Spiritual Formation

01/23/2018

On Persistence in Prayer – Part 2

By Phillip Powers

“Lord, teach us to pray.” (Luke 11:1) A seemingly simple question, but what is striking is that the disciples must have known how to pray. After all, they were raised in a Jewish religious system that placed a significant value on prayer. Nevertheless, when they compared their experience to that of Jesus, they couldn’t help but conclude that there must be something that they were missing out on in their practice of prayer.

And Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ question is the Lord’s prayer, a text that is probably not completely unfamiliar to most. (Luke 11:2-4) So, in lieu of an extended discussion on all the clauses of this “model prayer”, we may simply conclude that Jesus’ understanding of prayer was grounded in His relationship with the Father which He had by nature as the Son of God, and, in the gospel, that relationship is extended to us by grace through faith. We may now bring all of our needs and concerns to God in prayer, because He has become our Father and we have become His children. (On this, see my post: On the Lord’s Prayer)

Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ question, however, doesn’t simply stop with the model prayer. He goes on in this passage to describe what kind of a father God actually is, i.e. a good and trustworthy Father who responds to the requests of his children. This much is explicitly stated in Luke 11:11-13; this much seems reasonably clear. The difficulty, though, lies in between these two seemingly clear pieces of Jesus’ answer, and this being the “parable of the friend at midnight”. (Luke 11:5-8)

5 And he said to them, “Which of you who has a friend will go to him at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves, 6 for a friend of mine has arrived on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; 7 and he will answer from within, ‘Do not bother me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed. I cannot get up and give you anything’? 8 I tell you, though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his impudence he will rise and give him whatever he needs. (ESV)

On a first reading, it might seem that Jesus is suggesting that, when we have a particular need or concern, we ought to persistently bring that request to God in prayer until He responds. After all, isn’t that what the friend in the parable had to do to get his neighbor to give in to his request? And doesn’t Jesus say that it is because of the friend’s persistence (cf. v8, so NASB, NET, NKJV, HCSB) that causes the neighbor to rise and respond to his request.

However, there are several exegetical and theological problems with this “persistence” interpretation

  1. In vv. 5-7, Jesus is asking a rhetorical question similar to the question he asks a little later in the same passage in vv. 11-12. In both places, the question is simply “would any of you do something like this?”, and in both places, the implied answer is “No!” Just as no father would give their child something that is harmful like a snake or a scorpion, no person in Jesus’ day would act like the friend in this parable.
  2. Jesus confirms this when he describes the friends actions as “impudence” (v.8, so ESV). Now, a quick survey of the major translations reveals quite a bit of diversity in the translation of this word even though, most translations opt for something like “persistence”. The problem is that this is the only occurrence of this Greek word in the entire NT, a hapax legomena, and when we look at the uses of this word outside of the NT, it is reasonably clear that it never means anything like persistence. It always carries a negative connotation of something like shamelessness, impertinence, impudence, ignoring of convention. It describes a lack of sensitivity to what is proper, or a carelessness about the good opinion of others (so BDAG).
  3. Lastly, Jesus is making an argument from the lesser to the greater, a how much more argument, and he is doing so by way of contrast and not comparison. In other words, if this sleeping neighbor will respond to the embarrassing, culturally inappropriate, shameless request of his friend, then how much more will God certainly respond to the appropriate and legitimate requests of His children. The parallel question in the passage, which we alluded to earlier (v. 11-13) drives this point home: God will certainly give His children good things when they ask Him.

For these reasons, it is unfortunate that translators and commentators continue to import the idea of persistence into this parable. Jesus is not calling us to be more persistent (read insistent) in our prayers; rather, he is calling us to grow in our faith and trust that God is a good father who responds to the needs of His children when they bring them to Him in prayer. If this is so then, one cannot help but wonder if there is not some other scriptural warrant upon which we might base a theology of persistence in prayer. In this regard, some turn to the “ask, seek, knock” saying in 11:9-10.

9 And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.

The imperatives in this saying – ask! seek! knock! – are in the present tense, and in the original language, this usually refers to a continuous action. So, the HCSB translation “keep asking… keep searching… keep knocking” is not completely unwarranted. However, it would be wrong to conclude that repetition in asking, seeking, and knocking is what causes it to be given to or opened for us, especially in light of the preceding parable of the friend at midnight. In light of what we said there, it seems more likely that Jesus is saying that we should keep on asking, seeking, and knocking because we can trust God our Father to give and to open. In other words, the cause-effect relationship does not flow from prayers voiced to answers received, but the other way around. God’s fatherly goodness should motivate us to keep on asking, seeking, and knocking.

So, we may need to reconsider our definition of persistence in prayer. Most of the time, when people think of persistence in prayer, they think of the repetitive bringing of the same request over and over to God until He gives us an answer. However, this definition simply doesn’t reflect what Jesus is teaching in this passage. Further, the path between this kind of “persistence” and sinful insistence would seem to be quite slippery indeed. No, I think Jesus is envisioning a different kind of persistence – one that is more general in its scope, one that is grounded in faithfulness to the spiritual discipline of prayer itself, one that is motivated by our fundamental belief in God’s Fatherly goodness. In other words, Jesus is calling us to a persistence that is characterized by the regular bringing of all our requests to God in prayer, always trusting in Him to respond to our needs as a Father.

For further study:

Sermon: Lord, Teach Us to Pray! (Luke 11:1-13)
Series: The Parables of Jesus
Church: Redeemer Church, La Mirada, CA
Date: June 19, 2011

See also Snodgrass, Klyne. Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008.

2 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Biblical Theology, Sermons, Spiritual Formation

Tim Challies

Slow To Write

"let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger."

lovegavehope

Just another WordPress.com site

Jared Cornutt

Pastor | Speaker | Writer

Denny Burk

A commentary on theology, politics, and culture

G3 Ministries

Events + Resources for the Local Church

Biblical Reasoning

Biblical and Systematic Theology According to the Scriptures

RetroChristianity

Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith

SBC Voices

Southern Baptist News & Opinion

Lucid Theology

Thoughts on words, books, theology, and life.

Baptist21

A pastor-led voice for Baptists in the 21st century

Center For Baptist Renewal

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

The Pastor's Well - Pastor Well

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

Welcome

Articles - AlbertMohler.com

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

The Gospel Coalition

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers